US Army

[manofdreds]

I have a scenario to bring up for off the wall conversation. Suppose this British wanted to try for a third time to invade and subjugate the US as it existed in during the civil war period. Using all the generals of the civil war, who would you have command the army of 5 infantry corps and one cavalry corp? Mine would be:

Commanding General- Grant
Corps(Jackson, Hancock, Reynolds, McPherson, Kirby Smith)
Cavalry(Forrest)

[unionblue]

Sheman overall commander,

Corps (Lee, Jackson, Grant, Thomas, Cleberne)
Cavalry (Forrest/Sheridan)

Unionblue

[manofdreds]

I didn't include Lee, I figured he would be better as military advisor. With my list and unionblue'<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> brings up an interesting question: What would the interaction be between Grant and Jackson?

[sean_harris]

brings up an interesting question: What would the interaction be between Grant and Jackson?

Hmmm, Grant would nod his head while he widdled and give Jackson 3 Corp for a Flanking! LoL!

He then would tell Jackson, "Don't worry, I have another 60,000 men ready if you lose more than you should!"

[johan_steele]

Frederick, there was an excercise/scenario at West Point post war that had a British involvement in the War during the Spring of 65.

Listed as the Army Commander: Hancock w/ Upton commanding the Cav, Wilson commanding Hancocks newly raised Veteran Wolunteer Corps, Logans Corps of Shermans Army transferred from the west, A corps of USCT from the Army of the James and those who fought near Nashville under the command of Dodge and finally a new Corps of combined AoP veterans and various state raised militia under Chamberlain.

IIRC the scenario had the "intervention" occuring in January/Feb 65 w/ the landing of 17,000 British Regulars in NY w/ the intention of seizing NYC as a base of ops. The scenario was played out several times w/ the British being pretty well smacked each time. The discipline of Professional British soldier against combat hardened Union Veterans...

The reason I recall the scenario is that it was mentioned that Upton was suprised at the outcome because he felt a professional Army like that of the Brits had a serious leg up on the US Army of volunteers and militia.

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

Would Pat Cleburne have been prepared to fight against the British? Interesting question.

Yes, he was born in Ireland. But he was also a Protestant and, therefore, arguably more British than Irish.

I say "arguably" because the issue is a contentious one. And I speak as someone who is both a Catholic of Irish ancestry and an Englishman of Protestant ancestry.

For what it is worth, I cannot see how a British army - of any size - could have coped with battle-hardened American veterans. How they would have dealt with the Regular Army of 1861 is a more interesting question. But, in either case, your fleet was heading to the ocean floor.

Bill

(Message edited by Bill_torrens on February 11, 2005)

(Message edited by Bill_torrens on February 11, 2005)

If I were the British I'd have attacked the west coast. Seizing California. Gold don’t ya know. Perhaps even coordinating it with an attack from Mexico. Canada building an army as a threat but in actuality being strictly a defensive force. And I'd surely have laid waste to the ocean going vessels.

As to leading the army. I'd have to say Lee, Stuart, Longstreet w/Hill and McClellan w/Jackson. Hancock, Thomas and reynolds were all viable options. I think there would be a multitude of men capable of faring well. Grant would not even enter my mind as I'd want reasonable causalities. Forrest would be ideal but highly unlikely. I have no doubt that in 61 the Brits would fare far better than in 65. By 65 it would have been an incredible uphill fight even to make a dent in the US. Not just because the army would be full of Vets but by 65 the equipment was incredible for the time.

As to Cleburne. Interesting question. I'm not sure what he would have done. Had he lived I think he'd have defended the states. But in 61, I am not sure.

[johan_steele]

Aphillbilly, w/out the Panama Canal... hehehe a British Army at Sea for A LONG time to make it from England to California and lets not consider a trip from India. As to the US Fleet being sharkbait... I don't know; I think there might have been more of a fight than people realize. Look to the ships of the line of 1865, it is an interesting comparison. As to just assuming the Brit navy would have walked all over that of the US... Two words: Essex &amp; Constitution. American shipbuilders were first rate and arguably the finest in the world, add to that superior weaponry and all that is left is the quality of crews which was what kept the British the master of the seas for centuries.

[gary]

I think the RN would have trouble against the monitors, ironclads &amp; the New Ironsides. But arguing that the invasion fleet sneaks into Canada and the Royal Army invades from there, here's my pick of generals:

Grant as General-in-Chief
Lee, Jackson, Hancock, Thomas, McPherson for an Infantry Corps
Forrest for Cavalry

Now, if I wanted to lose, I'd have:

McClellan as General-in-Chief.
Butler, Hood, Burnsides, Siegel, Sumner as Infantry Corps Commanders
Pleasonton for Cavalry

[rbenne]

AP

I have to agree with Shane in part. I can not see the English running the horn with troops.

Perhaps a land march across Canada, but not likely since supply would be nearly impossible.

While your idea makes loads of strategic sense it cant work logistically.